How the Prophet Would Respond to “Draw Muhammad” Defamation and “Anti-Islam” Protests

“Armed anti-Islamist protest outside mosque.” This is the headline that I am reading as I rise out of bed. I also see another headline: “Marine hosts ‘Draw Muhammad’ protest outside mosque.” Aside from these protests and events being offensive and downright degrading towards Muslims, they are also highly ironic.

If he were with us today, Prophet Muhammad would call on Muslims and non-Muslims to avoid defamatory remarks towards neighbors as well as strangers. He would warn his followers and peers of how dangerous it is to fall into the trap of inciting anger of those who do not agree or share the same opinions as others.

In 7th century Arabia, Prophet Muhammad was attacked and insulted by those closest to him as well as his enemies. One particular woman used to throw trash on Muhammad as he walked down the street. Instead of reacting aggressively towards her or striving for revenge, he showed her compassion and forgiveness. The Prophet never responded to her in an evil way.

That is not all. After a victorious battle in Mecca, Muhammad released his enemies and told them that they were free to leave unharmed. The release of his prisoners shows the Prophet’s mercy and compassion because he could have easily taken revenge by killing these defenseless enemies. Muhammad forgave his opponents because he understood that God is not harsh or revengeful, but rather mild and gentle.

Rather than being an “evil” man with “barbarian” characteristics, as some in the “Draw Muhammad” campaign believe, the Prophet fostered mutual respect and religious freedom. He was a champion of universal peace and harmony between Christians and Muslims, as he outlined in his “Constitution of Medina.” Muhammad was also adamant about protecting Christian communities and ensuring that their judges and churches were respecting and preserved “until the End of Time.”

The people planning the anti-Islam event in Phoenix and the on-going “Draw Muhammad” contests are troubled because they do not promote brotherhood between Christians and Muslims. In Philippians (2:1-2), Jesus Christ said that all human beings should be of “one accord, of one mind.” The Prophet Muhammad reiterated Jesus’s call in stating: “All God’s creations are His family.” Sounds like messages of love and peace and not hatred and division.

Islamophobes who deliberately attempt to antagonize Muslims have not only forgotten about Jesus’s message of love and peace, but they have also ignored the example of Prophet Muhammad, Christ’s brother and kindred spirit.

6 thoughts on “How the Prophet Would Respond to “Draw Muhammad” Defamation and “Anti-Islam” Protests”

Isn’t it odd how Craig Considine magnifies every reference which portrays Mohammed in a benign light while studiously ignoring the much greater body of evidence of his brutality. For instance, here is a list of the people Mohammed had assassinated for satirising him, with sources from the Sira and Hadiths:

Hi there,
Using “WikiIslam” as a source for knowledge on Islam is akin to using “Vactruth.com” for knowledge about vaccinations. It has an agenda, is completely biased, uses half-truths, takes every thing out of context or even straight up makes things up. Please use better websites and sources.

Saying that Muhammad (pbuh) had people assassinated for satirizing him is again, another half-truth devoid of context. The people you are referring to were not simply satirizing him under “free speech” but rather were inciting violence, war, treason and rebellion. As outlined in this post, Muhammad (pbuh) was previously insulted on various occasions without retaliating or punishing the people responsible. On the contrary, he would either ignore them or respond with tact and even mercy – like the time that his abrasive neighbour fell ill and he asked after her and made sure she had food to eat.

So either Muhammad(pbuh) was an unstable person who contradicted his own actions, or he was a wise man who treated people according to their circumstance. I believe the latter.

I have found WikiIslam to be scrupulous in providing sources. If you complain about WikiIslam you are only complaining about the hadiths and the sira which they quote.

On the other hand Dr Considine never gives sources. Which of the two is playing fair with the reader?

Regarding context, I find it always to be the case that Islamic apologists shout “Context” about anything negative about Mohammed while claiming anything positive was intended to be applied universally. While I agree that the background of these assassinations was one of political struggle, I think it is going too far to call the satirical offenses treason (ie against the legitimate government). It appears more likely to me that the assassinations were part of Mohammed’s violent rise to power in Medina.

Either way, it is clear that today an awful lot of Muslims around the world (not to mention sharia) consider satirising Mohammed an automatic justification for death. What are you doing to persuade them that they have misunderstood Mohammed’s message?

While writing my book, ‘How to Defeat the Islamic State’, I was actually very surprised that the longest chapter turned out to be ‘Unpopular Culture’, all about media depictions and criticism of religion.

… Despite all these virulently krishnaphobic, antichristian and sikhist attacks by theophobe ‘right wing extremists’ in establishment art, business and media (John Lennon, Monty Python, Dave Allen, Denis Lemon/Gay News, Andres Serrano, Father Ted, House of Fraser, Dan Brown and Gurpreet Kaur Bhatti), Christianity still thrives as the world’s largest religion, as do Sikhism and Hinduism in their own strange ways, with the occasional protest, lawsuit and a cumulative modern culture blasphemy death toll of zero. Unless you count John Lennon.

Including the January 2015 Charlie Hebdo attacks, total known modern Islamic blasphemy deaths since the Satanic Verses now number over 350.

You can call Islam peaceful until you’re blue in the face, but the facts say otherwise.